From: John P. <jp...@cl...> - 2007-03-31 22:03:04
|
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <br> <br> Some stats using rsync vs using tar on a file system with big files ....<br> <br> Server is a FreeBSD 6.2 box, 2.93Ghz Celeron with 768MB Ram., RAID10 on a 3ware 9500Scontroller.<br> client is a Mac pro dual/dual xeon 2.66 6GB ram<br> source drive 94GB of media files average file size 10MB on a 250GB SATA-300 drive.<br> network switched gig-e<br> <br> tar (baseline) 10.7 MB/sec<br> <br> rsync 1st - 5.63 MB/sec (writing data on server)<br> <br> rsync 2nd - 10.27 MB/sec (reading data for rsync checksum compare but checksum cache not yet written)<br> <br> rsync 3rd - 35.20 MB/sec (rsync with server side checksums in cache)<br> <br> On all runs CPU was not the limiting factor.<br> <br> rsync is a big win with large files on machines with enough memory and CPU.<br> <br> <br> </body> </html> |